Roger Cicala looks at the Canon 40mm F2.8 STM pancake lens

Lensrentals' Roger Cicala has just tested Canon's EF 40mm F2.8 STM pancake prime lens, with interesting results. Cicala has tested eight copies of the $199 lens, to see what compromises have been made to offer a video-optimized lens in a small package for such a low price. His initial impressions are worth reading if you're one of the people considering this lens.

Comments

Just got this lens yesterday. I believed all the hype about how sharp it is, can't say that mine is fantastic, although its more than usable wide open. I need a camera that fits in my suitbag pocket. My 60D with 40mm lens on fits just perfectly. Even with my old 35f/2 on it was too large and until now I've had to use my S95. So, it's not going to replace my zooms, it's IQ does seem better than my 50mm f/1.4 at f/2.8, and it's a bit wider. What's not to like.

I do not own a Canon, but this is - after reading the test - absolutely a standard lens for a DSLR. Pentax have a similiar lens but with a "quick-shift"-function: that means, you could adjust the distance durcing the AF-mode... that's pretty cool.

Here is a thought for the people who think this lens is Canon's initial steps in to the mirrorless system...Judging by the focal length and the price it might be the standard lens for an APS-H (1.3x) size camera? Just speculating on a lazy saturday morning...better than brand bashing or worshipping maybe?

One important component of mirrorless systems is compactness. It needs to be a more compact alternative or supplement to a DSLR system (APS-C or FF). Using an APS-H format would be counterproductive to that goal. Furthermore, it would drive up the cost of the camera, since cost goes up with sensor size. APS-H is obviously larger than APS-C. The chances are highly, highly unlikely that Canon will be using a sensor larger than APS-C in their mirrorless system. In fact, most even doubt that Canon will even be going as large as APS-C.

And quite frankly, I'm pretty sure that when Canon intros their mirrorless system, it will have its own set of dedicated mirrorless lenses. So trying to use this EF pancake lens as a basis of predicting the format of Canon's mirrorless system is completely pointless.

You have valid points but Canon surprised everyone with a relatively large sensor G1 X and managed to keep the camera size to compact dimensions. I don't think anybody expected that. If Canon uses APSc size sensor wouldn't they be shooting themselves in the leg? A smaller sensor than APSc? How will they then justify current G1 X price and while the competition offers mirrorless cameras with APSc sensor? In my opinion the biggest advantage of a mirrorless system is the weight saving once you put a zoom lens on it no longer pocketable so I don't think the EF mount would be a limiting aspect in terms of size. This saves the cost of designing a new lens mount and lens range from scratch. What do you think?

@oselimg- they'll be "shooting themselves in the leg" even more if they use an APS-H sensor in their mirrorless body while most of their DSLRs still use APS-C!!! There is no way Canon is going to put a larger sensor into their mirrorless cameras than what they are using in their DSLRs. That's why most people think that Canon will use a sensor equal in size to their G1X (which is slightly smaller than APS-C) or smaller.

As for "justifying current G1X prices", the G1X is basically an expendable product. I would be surprised if it even still exists a couple years from now. Canon will still keep the G1X around for those people whoabsolutely don't want an ILC, but they don't have to "justify" its price to anyone. The G1X is basically a "take it or leave it" product. I think Canon would just as well have it go away because they stand to gain more by having people buy an ILC version of the G1X so they can sell you lenses!

Re: "...the biggest advantage of a mirrorless system is the weight saving once you put a zoom lens on it no longer pocketable"...ILC is not really about being pocketable because today's ILC cameras aren't really pocketable! I have a Oly E-PM1, which is the smallest of the m4/3 mirrorless bodies. Even with a Panny 14/2.5 pancake on it, it's /barely/ pocketable. But it doesn't matter because the overall package is still a lot more compact than a typical EF-mount DSLR. And that is primarily due to the shorter lens registration distance and made-for-mirrorless lenses.

Canon's mirrorless camera *will* have a new lens mount because it will have a new, shorter lens registration distance. Your statement about "saving the cost of designing a new lens mount and lens range from scratch" is a false economy because any costs will easily be paid off by new lens purchases! It's like saying, "Lets save us the cost of making new products by not making new products to sell!" FAIL!

Great review , great lens - but I still wish it had been a new 35mm f2.8 which would have fitted into the current range 35 f2 (old slow AF) and the 35 1.4 L (too big too expensive) I strongly suspect Canon is trying out the market with this lens and will judge its next move based on the reaction to this pancake.

I also think that since Canon WILL bring out their own smaller format system camera at some point this lens might well be seen as a cross over model.

I just hope that when Canon do get around to it they don't do a Nikon V1 / J1 - you know The One - That doesn't sell.....

Looks like Canon has consitent performance between lens samples and has good manufacturing controls to make the same lens twice. I assume this is a four element design, would be interesting to see how it compares to the old Zeiss Contax/Yashica 45mm pancake (Tessar).

You'll need way more samples than 2. Statistically, 30 or more would be a good number.

You should read this article: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/product-variability-part-i.html

"Let me give you a numerical example. Suppose a company introduces a new piece of photographic equipment that is so poorly made that 20% of them perform horribly. I'd certainly not want to be recommending that to my readers. How many units would I have to test to discover that? If I tested 10, there would still be a 10% chance of me not getting a single lousy unit. If I reviewed two dozen products a year and I tested 10 of everything I reviewed, two or three times a year I'd be assuring my readers that some product was well made when it wasn't."

So, that means if they tested thirty samples and one was bad, they wouldn't recommend the product? That's a completely flawed approach.

Statistically, if you always test with ten random samples, you have a good chance of finding a bad copy from your horrible manufacturer. If you don't find one, then your tests are, safe to say, "accurate". You can be sure 80% of your readers will be perfectly happy, and the other 20% can trade theirs in for a good one.

The question is, out of your pool, how many bad copies would it take to sway your results? After all, the point of testing multiple copies is not to analyze the failure rate, but to get an average performance rating.

You dont understand manufacturing statistics. I'm a semiconductor engineer and 30 pcs is the accepted minimum sample size to characterize performance of a product to a standardized confidence level. You're not looking for 'bad' parts but just measuring performance parameters, calculating mean and std dev so that you know the quality of product you are shipping. Doesnt mean that you dont recommend the product, just how bad does the consumer (and Canon) want to deal with a very high percentage of returns? Because lens manufacturers dont guarantee performance specs it does turn into a grey area.

Well, the Pentax mirrorless camera (K-01) uses the APS-C size sensor and the K-mount lenses. So it is possible that a Canon camera of this type would have a sensor of similar size and would accept EF-S lenses. A good idea? Well, maybe for image quality (larger sensor) but not in terms of size and portability.

While this looks to be an excellent performer, the EF mount will dictate a certain size. If Canon is planning on a mirrorless with EF mount (like the Pentax) it will be a great option for Canon users to have a more compact option, and gain some advantages of a mirrorless design - but Canon has had a smaller sensor option for years now and has never produced a compact prime for it. I don't really see the EF mount as serious competition for MFT buyers, more like competition for the XPro-1. If anything, this lens (and the two wide EF primes with IS) signals to me that Canon is focusing on full frame video users more than anything!

Now if they released an APS-C focal length compact prime I'd be convinced they have an APS-C / G1-X sensored mirrorless on the way... Nice little lens, though, no matter what it portends.

Absolutely. I have one for use on my 5D and it works very well with this camera. On an APS-C body it would be equiv. of a short telephoto and not as much use, to my mind. It wouldn't work on a small mirrorless as the lens register distance would be too much and spoil the benefits of the mirror-less design (see Pentax K-01).

I totally agree - Canon now have most (all ? ) of the elements of such a system in place - the only questions are:

1: When ? 2: How much ? 3: APS-C or G 1X or smaller sensor?

I just hope they don't cock it up like Nikon did with the One Series. I'm a camera nut and always check out other snappers cameras (yes - I'm Sad Joe) - but I have NEVER seen a V1 or J1 outside of a demo or a shop.....

It's funny to me that one of the main critisisms of Canon was that they didn't have auto focus lenses optimized for video. The thing is that anyone who has a clue about focussing for video with a DSLR doesn't use auto focus even if it is available.Now we have a lens that apparently can't easily be manually focussed. OOoopps.Which market is this for?

There are the hardcore DSLR videographers (who don't use AF), and then there are the casual DSLR videographers (who do use AF). Obviously, this $200 pancake lens is geared towards casual DSLR videographers.

So in answer to your question of which market this is for, it's for the DSLR owner who doesn't want to use their DSLR on rails with a follow-focus! They just want to point the camera at an object, and have it focus, just as if they were shooting a photo!

I don't own a jib but I'd imagine you're almost always at infinity if you're using one. But if you did need to focus I suppose you'd do it the same way as with any other video camera - a monitor and a remote.

Why is everyone so excited about this? Its only stand out feature is that it's thin. Big deal, how is that going to affect the handling of a big camera like any EOS? The concept might make sense on a mirrorless as it will slide into a pocket, here it's just a gimmick.

anything that cuts wt. is good. after using a sony nx7 on vacation and then getting back to work with my 1dsmk3 24-105 was a stunning change. If canon can combine a viewfinder equal to the 1DS with a nx size camera that would be a wow.

Wow, you sure are ignorant of history. Thin pancake lenses have been popular and desirable even back in the days when all cameras were 35mm "full frame" film cameras. The advantage of a thin lens is that it makes your camera as compact as possible. That's a nice quality to have.

"It could be even smaller if it was another two stops slower (f/5.6 vs. f/2.8) than these f/1.4 primes :)"

Not really. The lens height is as small as it is because the 40mm focal length is a good match for the flange-to-film-plane distance. Its diameter is determined by the mount size. One could conceivably create a somewhat conical lens body (oh, goody—1930s-quality handling, unless you prohibit manual focus altogether) and smaller elements *may* allow closer packing of the groups, but there are still the AF motor and the iris to accommodate.

It's $200, you're not supposed to have to sell anything, especially not a 50/1.4 which is a completely different dish served in restaurants, not the pancake house. It could maybe replace the 35/2, but then you'd have to buy the 28/1.8 to add something wider again !

Konica Hexar has a 40mm f1,8 lens way back then as well. Carl Zeiss did, so did some other less know lens maker.

In regards to its good performance, well it's based of the tried and true planar design(purportedly) which orginated from Carl Zeiss. A design used and refined by many lens and camera makers. So duh.....

Although due to its compact form, I would be more incline to believe it's more of a tessar in its design. Also a design originated from Carl Zeiss and also a proven performer.

If Canon actually screwed up in either implementation, I would dare say that Carl Zeiss himself, will not only roll in the grave but dig himself out, search for the Canon engineers and give them a proper smackdown.

It's certainly not an actual copy of the Tessar or the Pentax. The Tessar is 4 elements, 3 groups. The Pentax is 5 elements, 4 groups. This Canon is 6 elements in 4 groups. It may be a descendant of those designs, but that doesn't mean Canon was spared any work making the lens good.

For something so cheap this bags a bargain I guess. But i'm still scratching my head as to why it would be a useful addition to my kit ultimately, given it looks fiddly to MF, and simply can't be as useful in low light as my 50L 1.2 (as equally fiddly to use for video). Seen some lovely samples though

hmmm. Somewhat nonsensical review. Auto-focus is not bad if you compare it to the 85/1.2. Well, yes, but the 85/1.2 is powered by a tortoise (I've used it). Resolution is compared to two zooms and a lens that is arguably medium format and so by its nature lacks resolution at 35mm. And CA? Not a word.

I think I'll definitely look into this lens for my XSi... nice and compact. I'm wondering what camera they've designed it for though. 40mm isn't really one of those sought after focal lengths for FF or crop bodies.

Thanks for the link, dpreview, and for the other valuable information you provide.

Because it strikes me as odd that Canon would make a pancake lens apparently designed for full-frame cameras when their current full-frame cameras are not at all small, is this new lens perhaps an indication that Canon has a compact, full-frame, mirrorless camera (in other words, my ideal camera) in the works?

There's no real penalty for going full-frame with a simple 4-element pancake design of this speed. There are neither retrofocal nor telephoto constraints, and the image circle isn't restricted by a long tube of a lens body — it would probably cost extra to add vignetting. I wouldn't read anything into it at all, beyond the fact that you can use it on a full-frame camera if you want.

Thanks for the news guys, I wouldn't have found it otherwise. As to the armchair QB's criticizing DPR- you're a spoiled lot. Maybe you care about DPR at your core and feel they need a good shellacking, but at least have some good taste when doing so. They don't mind criticism openly long as you can at least be gentleman about it. Ending I'll say, its easy to criticize the way a man walks until you are in his shoes. That doesn't mean anything you say has any factual basis though.

Now these guys are good - I remember the stack'o'filters. More of Lensrentals, fewer ebooks about the sliders in Lightroom, that's what I say. Now if only Canon could repeat the magic with an APS-C only 20mm f/2.8 (for example).

DPReview is a great source of information ... better than ever ... and it's free. I appreciate this news item and many others. R Butler, don't be deterred by the occasional rude remarks in the comments. Some people just seem to find fault with everything.

Since the lens is "video-optimized", one would expect some video testing. How well does it hold the focus? How quickly does it auto focus when the camera to subject distance changes dramatically? Does the audio "hear" the auto focus? etcetera

The site is a pale imitation of what it used to be .... Lack of reviews, news after everyone else has already heard it, bias to certain manufacturers and too much focus on apps and bloody camera phones!!!! Might I suggest DP pop into their local camera store and then check if their site has a review for each camera sold.

The site provides more reviews and more news than it has ever done. We don't publish rumours, but we're not behind other sites in terms of product announcements and on other news usually lag other sites only by the difference in time zones between us and them.

More high-end cameras are being released than ever so it takes us longer to get to some of the other cameras.

I'm genuinely interesting to hear about your theories of bias towards manufacturers, in terms of news coverage, though. We try to be even-handed, but some manufacturers are better at getting us information, which makes this hard sometimes. Which manufacturers do you feel aren't getting fair coverage?

Dpreview has never been the go-to site for lens review...that may change in the future but thats just my opinion. Their studio compare widget is awesome however so if they could possibly leverage this testing and presentation methodology towards lens it'd be nice, but lets face it, testing lens at a given focal length doesn't even take into account varying focal distances, etc so you can only test so much. DxOMark tries to review lens but IMO they suffer from low sampling. LensRental is in a unique position of being able to provide high sampled results due to their business advantage which is tremendous! What other company is going to buy or acquire anywhere close to the same amount of samples...

Than again dpreview was the first site I encountered that linked the LensRental blog, so surely they deserve credit here regardless.

They were looking for article writers (technique etc.). They need to do camera reviews in house with testing equipment

List of still-unfinished *camera* reviews, sorted by date, that have had previews posted more than a month. If you don't count lazy "roundup" reviews, where they try to review five cameras as once, then this list becomes much longer. The list of unreviewed *lenses* is very long.

I can explain exactly which ones of those are currently being reviewed (X10, X-Pro1, D3200), haven't yet become available (GF-5, 1D X, K-30, M Mono), or are unlikely to be reviewed (GRD IV, Pentax Q), but going into detail would take all day.

We have three full-time reviewers (one of whom will soon be re-starting lens reviews), plus a reviews editor who rarely gets time to review. As such we can only be working on three reviews at a time.

And, may I point out, our group reviews are often more in-depth than many other site's 'reviews,' so to dismiss something that takes a large amount of work as 'lazy' is rather rude to say the least.

We hold you guys to a higher standard than the other sites - you're compared to your own work, not other people's. I call your group reviews "lazy" (and I think rightly so) because they are simply *not* to the same level of detail as your other reviews.

Maybe it's time to call up Amazon HQ and get a budget to hire some more reviewers? Your lens backlog is big enough that you could have one guy reviewing lenses 40 hours a week and still never catch up to everything that's currently being manufactured.

P.S. - If you guys weren't owned by Amazon, yeah I'd cut you a lot more slack. You should be able to get any of the resources you need (Amazon has $5.7 billion of cash on it's balance sheet, I'm sure they can spare a little for you guys).

I suppose you're between a rock and a hard place. You can't easily outsource the technical side of the reviews, because what if a freelancer has a bad day and sends in mislabelled sample images? You'd look like fools and the camera manufacturers would be seriously unimpressed. Never mind the people on the forum, you'd have Nikon speaking to Amazon = interviews without coffee all round.

But conversely the technical stuff is time-consuming and difficult and requires specialist equipment. But on the other hand the chap at The-Digital-Picture appears to be one man, and he's evaluated all of Canon's lens product line by himself (plus swathes of the lesser manufacturers - Sigma, Tamron, Nikon, etc) to a high albeit waffly, slightly salesman-y standard.

The thing that worries me is that, historically, in the competition between craftsmanship and labour craftsmanship ends up as a teeny-tiny speck.

DPR does a fantastic job, but I'm curious why cameras like the Pentax Q, Ricoh GRD III or IV, Pentax K-01, Ricoh GXR, never get reviewed? They are popular cameras. A simple Flickr search for the Q or GRD III returns 16,780 and 21,428 user pictures respectively. So it's clear that they are not niche products but compelling, small shooters with tons of user interest. So why not review them? Were's the love?

And if more camera makers would offer advanced photographic features like the GRD III, everybody would win. But with no attention from the media (reviews, news, previews) what's the incentive for Ricoh to offer such cool cameras?

And this is why I will stick with Canon. We've heard rumors of them going towards automated/robotics manufacturing. When I heard that rumor I was like wtf we haven't done that yet? If you want to drive a safe car, fly a rocket to the moon, or build anything with high precision I would have expected automated manufacturing in this day and age already. If I want to buy an expensive purse for my wife, or an overpriced Leica, hand-labor is just fine.

My bet is we are just starting to see the fruits of their non-labor! I'm tired of playing the find the best copy game with expensive old lens!